Pray the Mass: How Magesterial?

[Elijah_Baley]

Writing back-and-forth with a Mr. Armstrong made me wonder: Where does that “Pray the Mass” quote we see all over the place come from?

For those unfamiliar with “Pray the Mass” here’s as it appears in my missal:

The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the altar. Further, you must pray with the priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way, you have prayed Holy Mass.

What is the source? Is this magisterial?

 

[hudson]

Pope St. Pius X

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Yes, but in what document?

 

[YoungTradCath]

“Pray the mass” (or, more commonly, "sing the mass) usually comes up in music threads. Why? Because there are two sets of texts that make up every mass: the Ordinary of Mass and the Mass Propers.

The parts of the Ordinary that can be sung are:
Kyrie
Gloria
Credo (Nicene, or the Apostles Creed, highly unfortunately, in the Ordinary Form)
Sanctus
Agnus Dei
(Second Confiteor in Solemn Pontifical Extraordinary Form masses, which actually must be sung)

The parts of the Proper that can be sung (which is all of them, incidentally):
Introit
Epistle (Reading(s))
Gradual (can be replaced with the Responsorial Psalm, highly unfortunately, in the Ordinary Form)
Alleluia/Tract
Sequence (in some seasons, and is, highly unfortunately, optional in the Ordinary Form)
Gospel
Offertory chant
Communion chant

The texts that make up the Ordinary of Mass NEVER change. In some cases (like the Gloria in Advent) they are just not used, but the individual words NEVER change. The Introit, Offertory chant and Communion chant can be dispensed with altogether in the Ordinary Form, which many people find a severe problem. I am one of them. If they are dispensed with, they are often replaced with any willy-nilly hymn in the entire world because in practice, there is very little control over this. This is fully allowed under present rules. What is meant by “singing the mass” is using these Propers instead of random hymns in their places, because these Proper texts have been developed over hundreds if not thousands of years, and are especially suited to the mass that they belong to, while hymns, if not banal and poor music altogether (there are many good hymns, admittedly, although most aren’t), never went through this whole organic development process and are just randomly inserted.

Propers ARE the mass texts, while hymns are just random pieces of hit-or-miss music that rely way too much on the tastes of the person picking them. Hymns are NOT mass texts, they replace mass texts. Therefore, to sing the Propers is what is generally meant by “praying/singing the mass.” To sing hymns is to sing random songs that one hopes line up with the mass of the day but, many times, do not. Propers are almost invariably extremely high-quality music, while hymns can be very good or disgustingly poor quality.

I think that explains what you mean.

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes, but in what document?

I don’t think anyone has ever found a source for the various quotations attributed to Pius X, such as this one and even the famous “don’t pray at Mass, pray the Mass” quote. My guess would be that the quote is spurious.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t think anyone has ever found a source for the various quotations attributed to Pius X, such as this one and even the famous “don’t pray at Mass, pray the Mass” quote. My guess would be that the quote is spurious.

I think I would agree.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Does it really matter?

It is good advise as it stands. Does it need to be a magesterial statement to make good sense?

 

[hudson]

I don’t think anyone has ever found a source for the various quotations attributed to Pius X, such as this one and even the famous “don’t pray at Mass, pray the Mass” quote. My guess would be that the quote is spurious.

My guess is it is legit.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t think anyone has ever found a source for the various quotations attributed to Pius X, such as this one and even the famous “don’t pray at Mass, pray the Mass” quote. My guess would be that the quote is spurious.

My guess is it is legit.

Then if that is the case it would not be a Magesterial statement. Not every word uttered by the pope is such.

But again I ask, what does it matter?

 

[ConstantineTG]

But again I ask, what does it matter?

I agree with this question/statement. Why do people ask for something to be magisterial for them to follow it? It seems borne out of the Sola Scriptura mentality that if its not in an authoritative document somewhere, then it is optional belief. That has never been the Catholic way of handling the faith. The truth is authoritative by itself.

 

[MarkThompson]

My guess is it is legit.

I’m sure you would like it to be, but if it were, then (1) if would probably appear in the record earlier than you will be able to find it, and (2) at least somebody who had quoted it would probably have found out where it came from so as to provide a citation for reference. I don’t think the long, sappy version quoted by the OP has ever appeared in anything like an academic book, but the academic books that relate the short “pray the Mass” give good evidence that it is apocryphal. E.g., Japhy’s book, which gives a half-dozen forms it crops up in; this 1947 book, which labels it an “aphorism that was never actually verified (we believe) as a direct quotation.” Now, maybe it was something he said in conversation, but we can have every confidence that it is not in any document issued under his name.

 

[japhy]

E.g., Japhy’s book, which gives a half-dozen forms it crops up in; this 1947 book, which labels it an “aphorism that was never actually verified (we believe) as a direct quotation.”

The first is not my book but Fr. Anthony Ruff’s. Be assured that’s not my pen name nor my true identity.

 

[hudson]

I’m sure you would like it to be, but if it were, then (1) if would probably appear in the record earlier than you will be able to find it, and (2) at least somebody who had quoted it would probably have found out where it came from so as to provide a citation for reference. I don’t think the long, sappy version quoted by the OP has ever appeared in anything like an academic book, but the academic books that relate the short “pray the Mass” give good evidence that it is apocryphal. E.g., Japhy’s book, which gives a half-dozen forms it crops up in; this 1947 book, which labels it an “aphorism that was never actually verified (we believe) as a direct quotation.” Now, maybe it was something he said in conversation, but we can have every confidence that it is not in any document issued under his name.

Do you have a problem with what the quote says? Do you have a reason to try and undermine its meaning? Just because you haven’t found reference to its origins doesn’t make it not legit. It is widely quoted as coming from St. Pius X. Don’t keep telling us what you believe and give us proof it didn’t come from him. There is no way you have access to everything he ever wrote. So unless you can prove otherwise, it is a quote from Pope St. Pius X. When you do try and prove its origins, try to not use words like probably, i think, i don’t think, my guess is, etc.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Do you have a problem with what the quote says? Do you have a reason to try and undermine its meaning? Just because you haven’t found reference to its origins doesn’t make it not legit. It is widely quoted as coming from St. Pius X. Don’t keep telling us what you believe and give us proof it didn’t come from him. There is no way you have access to everything he ever wrote. So unless you can prove otherwise, it is a quote from Pope St. Pius X. When you do try and prove its origins, try to not use words like probably, i think, i don’t think, my guess is, etc.

Actually it can not be proven either way.

But again I ask, what is wrong with the quote? Why does it have to have come from a Pope? Why does it have to be Magesterial?

 

[japhy]

Do you have a problem with what the quote says? Do you have a reason to try and undermine its meaning?

Calm down! I do not think MarkThompson disagrees with the substance of the quote; he is not trying to undermine it. He is simply pointing out that the quote has not been successfully nailed down to a particular document, sermon, or address.

Mark’s links show that the phrase has been quoted in varied ways – some say “sing the Mass”, others say “pray the Mass”. These quotes, while attributed to Pius X, never have a complete attribution, like, “Pius X, Address to Musicians, January 1908”.

It is widely quoted as coming from St. Pius X. … So unless you can prove otherwise, it is a quote from Pope St. Pius X.

There are many quotes attributed to famous people. That doesn’t mean those quotes are all actually theirs. That also doesn’t mean the substance of the quotes is wrong.

Perhaps you’ve heard of the “Christ has no body now but ours” prayer/quote attributed to St. Theresa of Avila. Well, the Institute of Carmelite Studies in Washington DC cannot find the prayer in either the written or oral tradition of St. Theresa. My point is, it’s possible for a quote that is widely attributed to a person to not actually be from that person.

Don’t keep telling us what you believe and give us proof it didn’t come from him.

He’s not allowed to express his opinion that the quote isn’t from Pius X? An opinion expressed in the absence of any non-anecdotal evidence to the contrary?

There is no way you have access to everything he ever wrote.

But we have access to the vast majority of it in the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS). I do not know if anyone has combed through the volumes of the AAS pertaining to Pius X’s papacy, looking for this quote, but if he actually wrote or said it in an “official” capacity it is probably in the AAS.

Nothing will be shaken in me if it turns out Pius X never actually said this quote which is so widely attributed to him. It’s not a doctrine of the faith. It’s not the hinge of my salvation. It’s at times like this that I recall the wisdom of St. Ambrose that “of all words, it is the eternal Word which lasts; our mortal words fall away, but His Word endures.”

 

[MarkThompson]

The first is not my book but Fr. Anthony Ruff’s. Be assured that’s not my pen name nor my true identity.

Wow, I have no idea what caused me to type your name.

Do you have a problem with what the quote says? Do you have a reason to try and undermine its meaning? Just because you haven’t found reference to its origins doesn’t make it not legit. It is widely quoted as coming from St. Pius X. Don’t keep telling us what you believe and give us proof it didn’t come from him. There is no way you have access to everything he ever wrote. So unless you can prove otherwise, it is a quote from Pope St. Pius X. When you do try and prove its origins, try to not use words like probably, i think, i don’t think, my guess is, etc.

No, I think the quote is great (if rather sappy), and indeed I haveused the short version myself. My interest isn’t in proving that Pius didn’t write it, but in trying to determine whether Pius wrote it. And in that regard, there comes a time when you observe that smart people have researched it and said they can’t find it (or even a single “official”-seeming version of it), and you acknowledge that it’s not as though he were an obscure pope from the 800s who wrote three hundred encyclicals, but rather heavily-studied pope from the 20th century with a pretty graspable body of work. The quotation has all the hallmarks of something apocryphal: widely reproduced, but in varying forms and only from a few decades after the fact, no plausible sources ever found for it, etc.

Now, as I’m sure you know, it is essentially impossible to prove a negative about history – to prove that somebody never said something. Maybe Pius said this; then again, maybe he also said “I would love to introduce Communion in the hand at the earliest opportunity the people can be made ready for it.” I mean, prove he didn’t, right? Probably if I distributed enough books and pamphlets with that quote, in 100 years someone like you would be saying, “Well, it was widely quoted. Don’t use words like ‘probably’ or ‘i don’t think’; you have to prove he never, ever said it.” How would someone go about doing that? And if they were just trying to come up with the best available answer for someone on the internet and had no intention of doing a couple of years of exhaustive research in historical archives, do you think their answer would have to be qualified by hedging words?

At any rate, “it seems he probably didn’t say it” has at least one thing going for it over “gee whillikers, I sure hope he said it.”

P.S., to everybody else: it would be nice if people could ask questions that they’re interested in or curious about, without invariably being told that since the earth will not stop spinning either way, there is no point in discussing it and they should be quiet.

 

[Timothysis]

This back and forth reminds me of the Vision of Pope Leo thread! Yikes! :doh2:

 

[hudson]

You started this by calling it being attributed to Pius X as being spurious(false, fake, bogus,etc). That takes it from not being in a magesterial document to him never uttering those words which you can no way prove. My point is that you guessing it is spurious is the same as me saying it is legit. It is just an opinion. In the grand scheme of things that quote will be attributed to St. Pius X long after you and I are dead.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

… it would be nice if people could ask questions that they’re interested in or curious about, without invariably being told that since the earth will not stop spinning either way, there is no point in discussing it and they should be quiet.

Yeah. Exactly.

I find the quote has sufficient gravitas on its own with or without the attribution, but I am most fascinated by what could have possibly been the context. In a liturgical culture overrun with varying interpretations of what “active participation” means, it would be most enlightening to see what Church teaching was before Vatican II. How else can we read the documents with a “hermeneutic of continuity?”

Therefore, it would also be helpful to know how authoritative it was. If magisterial and not explicitly superseded — this doesn’t strike me as a matter of faith or morals, so it very well could be superseded — it would still be binding. Given that a casual Google search doesn’t turn up the source, though, this seems unlikely.

If it cannot be firmly attributed to him, I’d rather not use it as such, or at least whenever quoting it note that this is only “widely attributed” and not nailed down. We do have to be careful about these things. If we knowingly haphazardly attribute, that’s a little too close to a lie for my comfort.

Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

 

[hudson]

Its printed in my 1962 Missal as such so it must be a hell of a lie. Pretty far stretch to accuse people who know way more then all of us of lying about this just to put his name to the quote. I think this whole conversation is a waste of time so I am out.